Situation: Bottom of the 7th inning home team has a runner on 3rd with 2 outs, I believe, in a 0-0 ball game. 3 balls and 1 strike on the batter. Pitcher is in the windup. (Just a note, this was a JV game. CG's by both pitchers, only 1 or two hits, but I digress)

Play: Pitcher starts his windup & runner from 3rd attempts to steal home. The pitch is low, batter swings at strike two (trust me I gasped when he swung at the pitch too with a runner barreling down the line). Now the next sequence of events all happened at the same time. The catcher reaches forward and fields strike 2 cleanly and moves to tag the runner that is sliding in at this time. The runner slides in feel first, as a result of the play he kicks the catchers glove off of his hand, but the ball remains in the glove. This action was not intentional, it just so happened that the ball was caught simultaneously as the runner was sliding in. Umpire originally called the runner safe and then changed his call to out.

Does anyone remember anything like this happening before and if so what would be the correct call?

Situation: Bottom of the 7th inning home team has a runner on 3rd with 2 outs, I believe, in a 0-0 ball game. 3 balls and 1 strike on the batter. Pitcher is in the windup. (Just a note, this was a JV game. CG's by both pitchers, only 1 or two hits, but I digress)

Play: Pitcher starts his windup & runner from 3rd attempts to steal home. The pitch is low, batter swings at strike two (trust me I gasped when he swung at the pitch too with a runner barreling down the line). Now the next sequence of events all happened at the same time. The catcher reaches forward and fields strike 2 cleanly and moves to tag the runner that is sliding in at this time. The runner slides in feel first, as a result of the play he kicks the catchers glove off of his hand, but the ball remains in the glove. This action was not intentional, it just so happened that the ball was caught simultaneously as the runner was sliding in. Umpire originally called the runner safe and then changed his call to out.

Does anyone remember anything like this happening before and if so what would be the correct call?

Possession of the ball was not maintained, therefore the runner is safe.

It was very interesting to say the least. The original call made by the umpire being "safe" would have ended the game. Call was changed after discussion with coach from defensive team to "out". Offensive coach understandably went nuts as did the home fans. The baseball gods were looking down this day though as one inning later the team that had the call go against them won on an infield error and captured the W 1-0!

Just a question, have you every call a strike when a ball hits a batter ?

Next time you are watching a game
Look to see where the batter is in relations to plate
Next where is batter’s elbow in the strike zone or out of strike zone??

With more batters wearing pads on their elbow, I think this is one aspect umpires are missing
Before a pitch is threw ..

Yes, absolutely, I have called a strike when a pitch hits the batter in the strike zone. Coaches and batter aren't all that happy, but it is what it is: a dead-ball strike.
There are a number of factors to consider, not just elbow pads. Do you mean that the pitch hit the batter on the elbow pad, which was/wasn't in the strike zone?

Last Year was my sons senior year at Highland and we had a play at the plate play vs Medina. What happened was our catcher caught the ball and was going to put the tag down (ball got there a few seconds before the runner) and the kid from Medina lowered his shoulder into the catcher and took him out. Catcher held on to the ball and the kids was out. Now the kid wasn't tossed because the umpire who was pretty old and had trouble seeing the whole game said the contact wasn't what he considered extreme. I thought ( I could be wrong I get confused with slide or give up rule in high school) that you cant plow the catcher over. With the rule changes in the MLB with blocking the plate, I wonder if at all this will change rules at the High School level

Last Year was my sons senior year at Highland and we had a play at the plate play vs Medina. What happened was our catcher caught the ball and was going to put the tag down (ball got there a few seconds before the runner) and the kid from Medina lowered his shoulder into the catcher and took him out. Catcher held on to the ball and the kids was out. Now the kid wasn't tossed because the umpire who was pretty old and had trouble seeing the whole game said the contact wasn't what he considered extreme. I thought ( I could be wrong I get confused with slide or give up rule in high school) that you cant plow the catcher over. With the rule changes in the MLB with blocking the plate, I wonder if at all this will change rules at the High School level

The presence of a collision at the plate is not in and of itself illegal. Sometimes you have a train wreck that's violent, but legal. That's baseball.
Then again, at times you have contact that can and should be avoided.

It's impossible for anyone without being on the field to say what should have been ruled on your play. You say the player lowered his shoulder into the catcher and the umpire judged differently.

A few things to remember.......

- A runner is never required to slide, however, if he does slide it must be done legally. (judgment call)

- A fielder must give a runner access to a base when he is not in possession of the ball. The access is not required to be the "most desired" for the runner. (judgment call)

- A runner may not intentionally attempt to dislodge the ball from a player attempting to make a play (tag) on the runner. That act is at minimum interference and potentially malicious in nature resulting in an ejection as well as an out. (another judgment call)

The NFHS already has rules in place that cover collisions at the plate. The MLB change has no effect on what is done now, or what will be done in the future.

The presence of a collision at the plate is not in and of itself illegal. Sometimes you have a train wreck that's violent, but legal. That's baseball.
Then again, at times you have contact that can and should be avoided.

It's impossible for anyone without being on the field to say what should have been ruled on your play. You say the player lowered his shoulder into the catcher and the umpire judged differently.

A few things to remember.......

- A runner is never required to slide, however, if he does slide it must be done legally. (judgment call)

- A fielder must give a runner access to a base when he is not in possession of the ball. The access is not required to be the "most desired" for the runner. (judgment call)

- A runner may not intentionally attempt to dislodge the ball from a player attempting to make a play (tag) on the runner. That act is at minimum interference and potentially malicious in nature resulting in an ejection as well as an out. (another judgment call)

The NFHS already has rules in place that cover collisions at the plate. The MLB change has no effect on what is done now, or what will be done in the future.

After looking back on last year, I and other coaches have seen a trend of umpires that are just using the excuse of "I didnt see it" as a end all to every bulk, interference, and obstruction call. Is this something that they are teaching at umpire school? We just found it funny that we all had the same trends all year. Please do not take this as bashing umps, I had some really good one along with the really bad ones. The crews that OHSAA sent out for tournament games were top notch. If they are teaching it then really it is genius, bc what can a coach do but yell when the ump doesnt see it. We all know yelling usually just gets you tossed which is to expensive these days.

Bases are loaded, two outs , 1st baseman is playing deep ,not in the dirt at 1st base, pitcher is lefthanded, pitcher throws to 1st base but the 1st baseman does not moved, pitcher throws to where the 1st baseman is ?

After looking back on last year, I and other coaches have seen a trend of umpires that are just using the excuse of "I didnt see it" as a end all to every bulk, interference, and obstruction call. Is this something that they are teaching at umpire school? We just found it funny that we all had the same trends all year. Please do not take this as bashing umps, I had some really good one along with the really bad ones. The crews that OHSAA sent out for tournament games were top notch. If they are teaching it then really it is genius, bc what can a coach do but yell when the ump doesnt see it. We all know yelling usually just gets you tossed which is to expensive these days.

To suggest or ask if umpires are being taught to turn a blind eye to infractions is ludicrous.

Bases are loaded, two outs , 1st baseman is playing deep ,not in the dirt at 1st base, pitcher is lefthanded, pitcher throws to 1st base but the 1st baseman does not moved, pitcher throws to where the 1st baseman is ?

is this a balk ?

If F3 (1st baseman) is judged to be in the proximity of the base, then the play is legal.

Based on your description of F3 playing deep (not in the dirt), no legitimate play can be made on the runner, therefore, a balk has been committed.

To suggest or ask if umpires are being taught to turn a blind eye to infractions is ludicrous.

Its not the fact they are turning a blind I but that fact that this is the loop hole to ending discussions with coaches on obvious calls that they have missed. How is it that the two people that are getting paid to watch the game, the only two that doesn't see the play? Its frustrating when you talk to the other coach after the game and your both like how did they not call that one. Happens at least once a week in our conference. We changed Ump Associations this yr for our home games hope this makes a difference.

In July of 2007, effective for the 2008 season, the committee changed Rule 2-22 (Obstruction) to read...

ART 3:The fielder, without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve.

No change has been made since then to prohibit a fielder with the ball from blocking access to the base.

The NFHS wanting to get away for having “train wreck”. Change the rule in 2011.

I will look up the rule, but 2011 the fielder may not block 100% of the base,
Why ? If the fielder blocks 100% of base, the runner has to make contact to get to base.
So fielder is initiating the contact by blocking 100% of base.

The NFHS wanting to get away for having “train wreck”. Change the rule in 2011.

I will look up the rule, but 2011 the fielder may not block 100% of the base,
Why ? If the fielder blocks 100% of base, the runner has to make contact to get to base.
So fielder is initiating the contact by blocking 100% of base.

2.22.1 Situation C - R1 is advancing to score when F7 throws home. F2 completely blocks home plate with his lower leg/knee while (a) in possession of the ball or (b) while juggling and attempting to secure the ball or (c) before the ball has reached F2.

Ruling:legal in (a); obstruction in (b) and (c) if the catcher denied access to home plate prior to securely possessing the ball.

A fielder not in possession of the ball must give the runner access to the base. If he does not, then he has violated the obstruction rule.

Here is a call that I've seen called twice and I believe the umpires were wrong both times and if they were right, the rule needs to change.

Dropped 3rd strike. Ball bounces 5 feet to the catcher's right. Right handed batter starts to run to first base. First baseman sets up on the foul side of the base to receive the throw. Runner is on the inside of the baseline (not in the running lane) in fair territory to avoid running into first baseman. Catcher makes a bad throw and hits the runner in the back. Umpire calls him out for not running in the running lane which interfered with the 1st baseman's opportunity to catch the ball.

There are several sites online that claim this should NOT be called interference (one example)

No change in the rule is needed as the umpires were incorrect in calling the runner out in this situation.

If the throw comes from foul territory, the runner can be outside the running lane in fair territory. The same goes for a throw from fair territory, the runner can be outside the lane in foul territory.

The rule in place to provide the defensive team adequate opportunity to make a put-out, not grant an automatic out.

Runners on 2nd & 3rd pitcher in the stretch runner on 2nd is taking a large lead due to not being held on. Pitcher is in the stretch. He spins & throws to the short stop in the base line halfway between 2nd & 3rd. Runners both got back safely but I argued with field umpire that this was a balk. My interpretation is that without stepping off the pitcher must throw in the direction of an occupied base. True or false?

Runners on 2nd & 3rd pitcher in the stretch runner on 2nd is taking a large lead due to not being held on. Pitcher is in the stretch. He spins & throws to the short stop in the base line halfway between 2nd & 3rd. Runners both got back safely but I argued with field umpire that this was a balk. My interpretation is that without stepping off the pitcher must throw in the direction of an occupied base. True or false?

False. This is an easily mis-understood rule that varies somewhat between rule codes.

In short, the pitcher may throw to an unoccupied base in an attempt to put out the runner or to drive him back. Rule 6-2-4b

1) Always should be declared an infield fly. The standard for whether or not a ball could have been caught with ordinary effort does not kick in until the ball is in the outfield. Remember, the infield fly rule was written to help prevent the defense from getting a cheap out (or outs) based on the nature of the play. By not having this, the runner(s) are put in an unfair position.

2) Interference on the runner. Interference is an act which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play........ The offensive team interferes. The defensive team obstructs. (World Series)

3) Purely a "had to be there" situation to determine if interference has occurred.. While a batter does not have freedom to do what he wants in the batters box, it's rare that a duck would be judged as a hinderance

4) Unless the runner intentionally (rules by the umpire) caused the ball to hit him, this ball is live and the run scores.

5) A pitch hitting the ground is still a pitch. The pitch does not end until the ball is secured by the catcher,, comes to rest, goes out of play, is hit by the batter (other than a foul tip) or becomes dead. The batter can swing and legally hit the ball, he can swing and miss (strike) or he can be hit by the pitch (ball is now dead) In your situation, the ball becomes dead once the pitch hits him, he is awarded first base and any runner on base must return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

6) Foul Ball in all rule codes

What am I missing? #6. A ball hits the pitching rubber, which is in fair territory, and caroms into foul territory and you say it's a FOUL ball??? But it hits a base and it is a FAIR ball!! Doesn't seem right.

I think it's because the ball did not technically cross the plane of first/third base in fair territory before ending in foul territory (by definition when the ball hits the base, it has crossed the front of the base in fair territory). Bizarre situation, but it's the only sensible explanation I can come up with.